From NASA’s press release
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years
From NASA GISTEMP- Click image for original source
WASHINGTON — A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years –1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 — for the second warmest on record.
“There’s always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year’s ranking, but the ranking often misses the point,” said James Hansen, GISS director. “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.
In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.
“That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt. “The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”
The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.
“The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States’ temperature does not affect the global temperature much,” Hansen said.
GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.
Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.
Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.
“There’s a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends,” Hansen said. “In the last decade, global warming has not stopped.”
For more information about GISS’s surface temperature record, visit:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
* For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted, particularly at the northern latitudes, see this article
GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect
GHCN – Up North, Blame Canada!, Comrade
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly josef (10:01:41) :
“The only source to be trusted it seems is the satellite record.”
Even if the satellite is correct, ( and I would have to add, correct compared to what? Is somebody checking the surface temps with a thermometer to see if they match up with the satellite?)
From what I’ve read here, the satellite temps are measuring only the surface of the oceans and this is new data that was added 30 years ago. (And please, somebody correct me if I’m wrong,) I presume then, that they did not include ocean surface temps before that or that there were very few. If this is true then, how do you mesh the old data with a whole set of new data, (and oceans and land are like apples and oranges,) to come up with a global temperature that has any meaning compared to the simple land temperatures before?
Was it the warmest year ever for you? Maybe yes? Maybe no? I guess how we answer depends on where we live. Is it “true” that it was the warmest year in modern times for the planet from an honest Scientific” data perspective. Who knows.
The biggest problem that Hansen and NASA and the Met Office has (and so too many other Weather professionals as well) is that they have lost a lot of credibility with the people who pay their wages and buy their expensive little toys. Hansen tried to pull off a con, for whatever reason, and he failed. He used his office and connections to do it. He embarrassed NASA, his associates, and the politicians and business men who sought to use him for their own dubious reasons.
When we think of rats leaving a sinking ship we often think of them jumping into the water near the waterline. There are, however, others who run to the highest parts of the vessel. Hansen will be found at the top of the topmast. He will be the last to drown.
What of duty, honor, country? What of integrity? What of NASA or The Met? For many these never were, and never will be, matters that they ever gave the slightest thought. The worst fight you’ll ever have will be the one you have with a rat you’ve chased into a corner, or up to the topmast of a sinking ship.
I’m sure their bosses are scared to death and don’t even want to think about handing them a pink slip.
Yea, right now it seems NASA stands for:
Not
As
Smart
As people think they are.
James Hansen says “When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
Er no, James. When we average the last 10 years we find no warming.
r (10:21:14) :
Im sure you know that they did temperature measurements using baloons before the satellites came along?
And that they compared baloon measurements with satellite measurements in a transition period. They’ve been at it for a long time by now, you know. And if a “bug” is detected, they are open about it. They also post raw data and methods on the web.
Hansen’s timing is awful. He shouldn’t release these articles during record cold spells in the US and Europe. Better to wait till a hot day in July.
Two things to consider: the most recent decade of the Dow Jones Industrial Average was its highest on record; Air America filed bankruptcy because it couldn’t afford its heating bill (and other expenses) due to global warming.
“In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.”
Not even close. At most, it was the 4th warmest year of the last 30 in the Southern Hemisphere…
UAH LT SH
kwik,
Thanks, good to know. But have they checked it lately? To see if there is any drift over 30 years?
The map reminds me of the IPCC statement:
‘the medieval warm period is only local!’
With tasmanian tree rings as proof and their own models showing no change around Tasmania in case of a global temperature rise!
Why is this rise in the northern hemisphere not called local?
Baa Humbug (02:32:58) :
Hansen (you agenda driven truth hiding) poor excuse for a man. A thousand curses on you and yours (I wish I could swear)
You could always use my grandpa’s colorful description of those he disliked: illegitimate son of a syphilitic camel, has a bit of a punch doesn’t it. (He really hated camels)
“Herman L (09:38:59) :
[…]
My initial question to Anthony references that he wrote “For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted” (emphasis added). That has me looking for something in the original blog entry which is his evidence. I repeat: what is the evidence in Anthony ’s blog ?”
Hey genius, see that little rectangle on the top of the page with the title “Search”? How about you enter the word “GISS” there, press the ENTER button on your keyboard and read the search results?
So, that’s enough tips for you. Go read that and come back when you’re done. Like the RealClimate guys always say: go read these 800 “peer-reviewed” papers by “credible” climatologists… some of your own medicine for you.
Nik Marshall-Blank (06:01:45) :
As Kadaka has pointed out, the accepted corrections by McIntyre have somehow been forgotten.
In 2007
2006 was 1.23 and afterwards became 1.13
Another one who thinks 2% of the total surface area is the world.
Think about it Tom, this is actually a very effective way of getting rid of energy (via energy conversion to RF or ‘radio waves’).
At least half of the EM energy from any given ‘transmission’ heads into space (assuming vertically oriented dipole, doughnut-shaped rad pattern etc) and a portion of the balance is reflected and makes its way into space too. Conversion efficiences of PAs (power amplifiers) overall of VHF – UHF range from 60% (good) to 30% (poor) so there is locally generated ‘heat’ that may outweigh effects of ‘heat’ directly due to the RF EM energy …
And, the vast majority of the wavelengths/frequencies you’re concerned with here see an ‘optically transparent’ path/opening into space, regardless of overcast …
.
.
Wait a moment. Way back here (at something called norcalblogs.com/watts), it was reported that how Steven McIntyre got NASA to properly calculate GISS, resulting in 1934 being the hottest year on record (in 2007) with 2006 being number 4. Now this press release pegs 2005 as warmest on record, which wasn’t even in the top ten back then, just a few years ago.
….and another one. The 1934/1998 issue relates to the US only .
…see that little rectangle on the top of the page with the title “Search”? …?
Read my first post. Anthony claims I missed something in this post.
REPLY: At the risk of overstating the blatantly obvious, follow the links at the bottom of the article that I provided, that’s where there are two stories about GISS data. You can also use the search box here, and you’ll find dozens of stories about GISS issues. – Anthony
r (11:51:59) :
Well, I found something about it here, middle of the page;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
It may have been the warmest decade in total, but the temperatures were still cooling over the entire decade. There is no warming trend in the 2000s, yet it is still the warmest. Guess it depends how you look at it, and it’s kind of misleading. As long as the rate of warming in the 1990s was greater than the 2000s, the 2000s will be a warmer decade. It’s a meaningless statistic.
Interesting, 1934 the warmest year of the century, my year of birth.
It is about 60 years ago I learned at school of all kind of climates: Tropical climate, Pole climate, Moderate climate, Sea climate and Land climate. But no World climate……and I really believe that this is nonsense.
And all that temperatures of years and decades has nothing to do with climate, that is meteorology. To-morrow we have again some frost here in Holland, but we still live in a Moderate seaclimate.
Just curious… was it the warmest inferred decade in Bolivia too?
Hope this comes out right.
GISS US temps
2000 2007 2007 2009 2010 2010
Old New Jan10 Jan22
1934 1.30 1.23 1.25 1.24 1.26 1.22
1921 1.20 1.12 1.15 1.14 1.15 1.12
1931 1.15 1.08 1.08 1.10 0.99 1.00
1998 1.05 1.24 1.23 1.24 1.29 1.31
1938 0.92 0.85 0.8 0.86 0.79 0.77
1939 0.90 0.84 0.85 0.89 0.81 0.80
1990 0.71 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.89 0.91
1999 0.70 0.94 0.93 0.94 1.05 1.07
1953 0.44 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.87
2006 x.xx 1.23 1.13 1.10 1.29 1.31
DaveE.
If NASA cannot even figure out that a decade is ten years and that it does not end until the END of 2010, how can we have faith in any other numbers they give???
John Finn: You are missing something. US land temperatures follow water temps. We have long ocean coastlines, some of the contiguous states are practically surrounded. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Gulf of Mexico… To the north are the Great Lakes and the Arctic Ocean. Don’t forget the cases of Hawaii and Alaska if looking at all the states.
The water has the most abundant surface area. Whatever heat gets generated over the largest land masses, Europe/Asia, Africa, even South America, does not get to us without crossing that water which influences the received warmth.
With our small 1.5% (or 2% as you state it) surface area, it is obvious that our temps should be controlled by the large bodies of water. Likewise, global temps should also see a controlling influence, simply because the water has by far the greatest surface area, its temps are the largest amounts in the global average.
Yet do the US high temp record years match with the global ones? Nope. So, why not?
What caused all that heating in the contiguous US during the 19xx years to push them higher than global? What caused cooling during the 200x years to give us lower than global?
san quintin (04:09:09) : You wrote, “Interesting that a number of posters here find the recent warm 2009 hard to accept. Don’t they know that if you put a whole load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it will (in the absence of a negative forcing) have a warming effect? If they don’t know this then I suggest they go back to school. It’s high-school physics.”
Unfortunately, what is taught in high-school physics misrepresents the actual effects of carbon dioxide. There is no indication that downward shortwave radiation from anthropogenic greenhouse gases has any impact in Ocean Heat Content. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
The variability of the North Atlantic OHC has been explained as a product of the North Atlantic Oscillation and ENSO:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
And the North Pacific, similarly, appears to be driven by variations in atmospheric pressure:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
Lower troposphere temperature anomalies show upward step changes that result from strong El Nino events:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
Sea surface temperature records show that approximately 25% of the global oceans can warm, counterintuitively, during La Nina events due to oceanic processes that redistribute warm waters back to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. The impacts are noticeable after strong El Nino events.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
So, in summary, the rise in global temperatures over the past 30 years can be explained as multiyear aftereffects of ENSO.
Two word describe the thread’s picture of the world’s temperature:
Paint Job.
The Agenda is to shove this down our throats before anyone has a chance to unearth the data in it’s entirety. Early indications are that the data is heavily tampered with. Nary a month goes by and they keep shoving the nth warmest something on record, even though folks are shivering.
I’m not buying any of this baloney.
So, I say to the NASA promoters of record warming in the last decade:
Get out of here. No, really, get out of here.